Search

Driving on the pavement is banned by the same law that bans cyclists from riding on it. Needless to say, every car that is parked on the pavement was driven on it first, but that is another story. This post is about people to consider the pavement as a valid alternative to the carriageway when the road is blocked by a bin lorry, traffic or other obstructions.

And in Bristol where a car is seen being driven along the pavement towards a pedestrian.

In this one the driver of a car in this one decides accelerates past a cyclist, with two wheels up on the pavement.

Even the Royal Mail are at it. Here is a van being driven some long distance along the pavement (and no, the hazard warning lights don’t make it OK!)

Also report here of motorists driving on the pavement outside a primary school in Bolton and to get pass roadworks in West London. All of the above have been chosen to show what appear to be ordinary people driving on the pavement in ordinary circumstances, not whilst in a rage, drunk or when speeding or being chased by the police (which also happens).

Is this issue a nationally significant one? Have you experienced it yourself? Do let us know in the comments field below.

These banners, which were proudly displayed at a fringe event at the Labour Conference, give a clear impression that ‘Driver=Road User’ and ‘Road User=Driver’. This is totally unacceptable and marginalises all other road users.

This is not an isolated instance, and we need to be challenge it. Following the success of the ipayroadtax.org campaign, I suggest we complain whenever we see the term being used in this way.

I have just been alerted to the fact that the government is consulting on a change that would require local authorities to allow developers to provide as much parking within their developments as they wish ‘to meet market demand‘ with a suggestion that this would ‘tackle the on-street parking problem’. Consultation responses need to be in by the 26th September. Please ensure relevant organisations are aware of this one which needs a clear response.

“Nowhere in the introduction to the consultation (page five), or in the scope of the relevant section two (page 18) is there the slightest indication that there’s anything important about parking anywhere in the document. Nevertheless, under the section heading Reducing planning regulations to support housing, high streets and growth, under the sub-heading Supporting a mixed and vibrant high street, and last of all the matters listed under Proposal H: Expanded facilities for existing retailers are buried paragraphs 2.77 and 2.78 (under the sub-sub-sub-heading Maximum parking standards).

Paragraph 2.77 begins with the superfluous statement that “the Government supports the motorist” and ends by stating that “Parking standards are now a matter for local authorities”. Paragraph 2.78 reveals at once that this a lie, issuing the thinly-veiled threat that “the Government wants to understand whether local authorities are stopping builders from providing sufficient parking space to meet market demand”. In this way, smuggled in as being something that will somehow help retailers, we find a proposal that plainly has the potential to undermine both local democracy and sensible planning as they apply to all land uses, not just shops. We also see, in the phrase “meet market demand”, just how doctrinaire the secretary of state is when it comes to the use of private cars”

Here is the offending section in full (highlights are my own):

Maximum parking standards2.77 The Government supports the motorist and wants to see adequate parking provision for them. For this reason, we removed the previous administration’s restrictions on the number of parking spaces for new developments. And in March this year we published new planning guidance, which encourages local authorities to improve the quality of parking in town centres and, where it is necessary to ensure their vitality, the quantity too. Parking standards are now matters for local authorities.

2.78 We are aware that some local authorities appear to have adopted a more flexible approach, and this is to be welcomed, but the Government now wishes to understand whether more action is needed to tackle on-street parking problems. We want to understand whether local authorities are stopping builders from providing sufficient parking space to meet market demand. We also want to ensure that local authorities in their Local Plans have properly reviewed their parking policies and brought them up to date.

Question 2.16: Do you agree that parking policy should be strengthened to tackle on-street parking problems by restricting powers to set maximum parking standards?

Is it not a good idea to provide more on-property parking I hear some people ask? Well not really. When an area has a lot of cars then there will be a lot of commuting. When there is a lot of commuting the roads get full, public transport gets slower, cycling and walking get less attractive and even the motorists complain. When motorists finally get to the where they are going they find the car park is full and complain. In addition the density of housing reduces and commutes get longer making all forms of transport more expensive and commutes longer (LA is a good example of where this all ends). Planners have known for years that this is what happens, and the last conservative government accepted this in 1994 after the big road protests. Since then they have obviously forgotten. Let’s remind them! The alternative is denser building where places are closer together and within reach by public transport, bicycle or on foot.

Again – do please make sure that all the relevant organisation are aware of this consultation and the need to rebut it by the 26th September.

This carrot/stick proposal did however leave me wondering if the scrappage concept could be reworked to meet the needs of all road users, to reduce the number of cars on GB roads and in particular to reduce the number of cars parked on our streets.

First – the stick. An annual fee of £36 (10p a day) would be charged for people who wish to leave their car regularly on the street overnight, where safe and legal, to be paid to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (VDSA, formerly VOSA) annually as part Vehicle Excise Duty. The term ‘Regularly’ used above could be defined to mean that the vehicle was stored over-night on more than five occasions on more that three separate weeks, thereby excluding someone who leaves their car on the street over night once in a blue moon. Assuming that some 50% of 34 million vehicles owners pay the fee, it would raise £600 million per year.

Now for the carrot. This £600 million would be used to incentivise people to scrap a vehicle they own, paying out a modest £150 – £200 per vehicle to the first 3 to 4 million people who scrap a car each year. Dead cars are actually worth some £150-200 for scrap anyway, making £300-£500 in total – so would be a useful sum to many people. Needless to say the £36 per year over-night parking permit would irritate some people to get rid of their car or move it onto private property and would ensure that no one who parked on the street overnight would be able to pay £0 VED.

My guess is that this would work on many levels, resulting in:

people moving their vehicle onto private property to avoid the fee

people selling their vehicle to avoid the fee

people scrapping old cars both to get the refund and to avoid the fee

a less congested road network

a huge debate about whether this is good policy or an outrageous liberty

bringing many parties together who wish to see a reduction in parking pressure on our roads

a way out for provide politicians who have allowed this mess to build up over the years

the creation of an economic lever that prices this ‘externality’ which until now been un-costed

demand for additional some new vehicle sales as well?

How would it be enforced? Authorities would drive along urban streets at night a few times a month with a CCTV vehicle and record number plates. They would then filter out those who have paid and send the resulting details to VDSA who would correlate this with other sightings and issue fines to keepers of vehicles that have parked on-street for more than the allowed number of occasions. It is likely that the enforcement process would do more that cover its costs from fine income with the surplus being available to increase the incentive to scrap vehicles.

Would it be popular? It would certain generate howls of protest and reams of coverage in the papers, however a charge 10p per night for parking on public property is hardly a ripoff and street parking is widely recognised as being a serious issue with the majority of the population supports action on this. Up to 3 million people a year would befit directly from the scheme when they scrap vehicles, including many who would have scrapped them anyway.

As such I think there could well be more people for it than against it. As a reference point, I have calculate that some 1.5 million are scrapped per year on average, so with a target of 3 million per year would result in a doubling of vehicles being scrapped. If sufficient people were not incentivised to scrap vehicles by the offered refund, it could be increased until it was.

There would of course be unintended consequences which would need to be considered, including people who convert their front gardens into parking to avoid the fee and increased surveillance of the population by the state to name but two. I believe that these should be identified and managed rather than being used as a reason not to do anything.

Pedestrians are discriminated against

"In contrast to the changes made to every town and city to ease motor transport, walking has been made ever more unpleasant. Pedestrians have been treated with contempt. In a myriad of ways when we walk we are treated with less respect than when we drive". (quote for a cross-party parliamentary select committee report on walking in towns from 2001).

This blog documents how this discrimination works, what laws underpin it and what people are doing to counter it. Please take action and share your experiences in the comments section, on twitter or join our facebook group. Add photos to the Flickr pool. All photographs cc-by-sa 3.0 unless otherwise stated or obvious from the source.